program. [applause] [applause] >> thanks, todd. our job is to make the supreme court term interesting, and it was a year where i think mike and stewart and i came closer to earning our pay it began as i think many washington stories do with the chance or something new and exciting coming out of this old building on first street, but instead it turned out to be pretty much business as usual with many of the major cases being affirmed instead of reversing the giving of a new constitutional law and many patterns we have seen since 2005 and 2006 continue pretty much unchanged. i wanted to follow what the

professor rotunda said when he began with the -- began the anna nicole smith case which is my favorite case in the term as well, but really because of what it says about the supreme court today. first of all, with all respect to the bankruptcy bar, i think this is not a case that affects the lives of many americans accepted those of us who find ourselves in the position of mr. marshall or anna nicole smith. it answers a question that was really honored no one's mind and it addressed a form of injustice which would be quite low on the list of particular is the framers may have enumerated when considering the reasons for establishing our own country. but it did serve to illuminate i think some of the continuing stereotypes' the supreme court falls into in the 5-for decision. you have the chief justice

striking out showing us his on exceeded glittery knowledge. he also managed to stress the formalistic approach to the legal questions, the meaning of an article iii judged as opposed to an article i judge which a bankruptcy judge is and the concept of the judicial power of the united states that fantastic abstract concession that it may be. you had justice breyer in the dissent speaking for the functionalist view of the court that the purpose of bankruptcy law is to get rid of bankruptcy cases efficiently and the congress can up with a way to do it and why are we interfering with it and what is the problem with that being served the functional approach to it. ..

there are many, many dimensions in that case that i think have not yet been explored that tell us things that maybe some of the other cases don't. get a 90 cases we look forward to in the supreme court term began, two of the big lens or person in the cases come if you protest a chemist vendor versus phelps in the videogame case from which ended at being caught brown v. entertainment software association. both of those cases brought with

them the chance to explore first amendment issues in the internet era and they ended up really not doing that at all. the funeral case had a component to it involving an online screed against their parents of corporal snyder, which the court completely declined to address it all and instead look at it as a type of dinner plates. the videogame case again had the potential of looking at whether this new medium has something different than the other new media that arose over the centuries, but instead decided it did not impose either unanimous word you unanimous holdings getting to that resold. we have as well i suppose we should be grateful for arizona's contribution to the supreme court docket with the tuition tax credit case in the clean

elections case which was perhaps again i say the clean elections case the perhaps most predictable outcome, the other a little less so. but then we had the continuing outside so it justice kennedy and the perhaps interesting the business of finding out what it is thick and they tend to these during results. for instance, in the california presents case, he was greatly concerned with the assault to the dignity of a meet who held it unconstitutional conditions entering the site for maturity of holding judge trainor decision in california are required reduction in the prison population. at the same time, in the case from louisiana company apparently did not find it addition of salt on mr. thompson who was sent to death row because prosecutors withheld

exculpatory evidence, finding it no cause of action to recover from this particular indignity if not more. so finding what the principle is thick and the justice kennedy to these different outcomes they think would be theirs that they are beings who make stories out of the theater, but it will try to look at some of the unconditional and seated the on the left rate. when that did not get -- we noted in the wal-mart case of three women justices sided with the plaintiffs in that case and justice ginsburg's opinion that took much more seriously their claims of an atmosphere, and all boys club atmosphere that pervaded that company. but in the california presents case, we had all california members of the court finding

that the california government was incapable of addressing the constitutional conditions in prisons on its own and require action to make it happen in. in the videogame case, justices from new york took a blasé attitude that violence would somehow work the mine of young people. so i think if you go beyond the traditional stereotypical positions on the court, you can sometimes find patterns do you have to come up with something at the last minute to tell your editor. [laughter] [applause] i'll be spending my entire seven minutes talking about the chat type specific founding fathers. no, actually be talking about three points. one would be what i consider the most telling case of the term

peer to be a quick observation about a case which may be underappreciated in the next room and one observation about the media and the role of narrative in the corner. and i thank him in the most telling case of the term was the arizona election case, not because of the substance of the case for significant, although it is significant in its presence will be felt, but he has what it revealed about what is the most important relationship for the next 25 years of the court between chief justice robert injustice trained them in. and justice members said in his opinion as follows. the defendant research we have quote never, not once senders to a viewpoint neutral subsidy to one constitute ferdinand. but none of these cases, not one involves a subsidy given in direct response to political

speech. they're overly interpreting this, but justice kagan got under justice robert skin in the parallel in its rhetoric they are not once, not one was an indicator that he sees his perfect match. i think it's a beautiful antagonist relationship made in supreme court heaven between the two wal-mart's opponents. and i just had a couple things about justice kagan double demonstrate your ability to be truly influential. one is the quality of her writing. she is an absolutely superb writer. from the arizona election case, she says the difficulties in finding a goldilocks solution, not too large, not too small, just right. she says except in the world gone topsy-turvy come additional campaign speeches monday first amendment injury. in the arizona christian school case, she says supposed the state desires to reward for the religious devotion, could they offer payment? she says no really it goes on to

make a point. in the case involving prison sentencing, she says when we interpret a statute, we cannot allow the enemy is an excellent. in the case, in frivolous litigation, she writes in hollywood, litigation concludes with the verdict that leads one party fully trained and in the other utterly prostrate. even if the intake, extremist left on the cutting room floor. this is writing -- meets my standards. i'm a generalist, looking for something to write, some things, but iceberg, personality, has a touch of humor and his serenely self-confident. in fact, in my book on there's only one of the greater rage and that's justice roberts himself. if there is a way to have a blind taste test in opinion writing can we strip out what

the conclusion is, i'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference between the two. two other points about justice kagan, wiping she will be the match for justice roberts in the coming decade. concurring opinions she wrote none. only one other justice is not ready concurrent opinion this term and that was justice roberts. i don't know the reason for this involving much more complicated to make it out to be. i view as you could read that tactically or strategically. she's not taking our jurisprudence out for a little spin. she's not tooting her own horn, not quibbling. justice sotomayor route nine concurring opinions, one only a paragraph long, one of them meant to underscore her clean up with the majority opinion. i would question the merit of those sort of concurring opinions. might justice kagan beholding herself that, giving herself wholly or not an opinion, but an ongoing part way. finally the oral argument.

she has a superb questioner. the folks looked at a number of questions asked by justices determined she was completely checked out of the whole deal. she asks justice kagan has just asserted they were. but look at the questions. i don't understand the premise of your argument. in the halliburton case, mr. sterling, i wasn't sure what argument you are making in your brief. nevada ethics case, i'm not sure i understand that mr. rosen france. when justice kagan says she doesn't understand your argument, it's time to panic because she understands you out to lunch is about to destroy you. last night while looking at the number of questions is important, i wanted to cry at how significant or how penetrating these questions are. so i looked at frequency with

which the justices questions is referred to by another justice or by the advocates and the course answers another question. i called this a provocative question rate er cannot offer the ppr algorithm for sale to the highest bidder. but what we find in looking at 20 cases that were ultimately decided 54463, justice sotomayor asked twice as many questions as justice kagan. she was far more often to be referred to in the course of the answer to the question brascan of another question. to me that as a proxy for a her questions. looking beyond the coming term, and underappreciated case of a significant first aid part we consolidated cases out of california and test whether private parties can challenge the state's production of the medicaid reimbursement.

20 states -- at least 20 states have filed an amicus define california's behalf. i'm certain the court will return the night circuit enables states to reduce and save billions of dollars for the budget. finally come the power of the narrative. on june 23rd, 6 decisions handed down, one was in the close that. editors asked me if i'd write that story. said no, probate bankruptcy law. in a close knit. so i wrote the story for one purpose only and that was to drive traffic to a website and it worked. i'm still bitter that the editors took him a phrase for heroically proportioned. i will conclude as a journalist importer try to give readers for my story. i'm not writing for necessarily illegal audience comes at a general audience, not instead carries perhaps a great deal about texas golddiggers. billionaires unless probate.

[applause] >> good morning. thanks for the opportunity to be here. it's nice to be with you all. am tempted to yield my seven minutes back to make to elaborate on the views of justice sotomayor, but that would be wrong. i've been puzzling over some of the wrist conservative talk was justice kennedy outvoted the liberal bloc. i've been trying to discern a threat of mutual principle and the physicians adopted by the majority and also enlisted that did buy the four dissenters. it is the tricky business. examples, speaking of arizona, widely seen 54 split among arizona decision upholding the first amendment to override states right as in another arizona decision during the upset, rejecting a claim to

uphold states rights. compare arizona for half-price club versus batman the arizona christian school tuition organizations versus win. and by the same 54 ruling against the business lobby and yet another arizona case, chamber of commerce while ruling for the business lobby in wal-mart stores versus pepsi owned and several other cases which we've read a lot lately. and by the same split in rejecting the federal preemption claim in the wedding case while upholding the federal preemption claim complete the versus nancy. and five, same every case. of course i loaded the dice are characterizing decisions by pretending one would expect divisions among the justices to focus on their respective commitments to such natural principles as the first amendment rights, states rights for free enterprise and preemption. and mainstream media capitalization of the same cases might be easier to follow.

the conservative politicians, conservative hate efforts for a big money in elections, religious schools, immigrants, consumer class actions against big business and wants to help to nurture companies whose federal law technicalities to cut state law seeking justice for victims of the same cases i was talking about. fox's characterization might be a little different. the conservative justices respect political speech, opposed legal harassment of religious schools by that elusive no standing, or trying to save the country from illegal aliens, pose shakedowns of great american companies and don't want business which by contradictory statements that are abuzz. same cases. rate depends on where you sit. in "the new york times," two scholars have calculated up to

44 quintillion, they are truly apolitical and not ideological justices splitting in the same two configurations with kennedy as the swing vote in a dozen out of the total of 1454 decisions and that's what happened this term. so, am i suggesting it's all a political game with democratic appointees with liberal policies and public input and efficient conservative policies clicks not quite. but jefferson details and the republic piece, for example, the service alliance is of the course conservatives equate to version judicial philosophies, which dictate quite serious become which often cause them to disagree come or sometime cause them to vote against which you may suspect to be their political preferences. still, tended beasties lit in

terms of who appointed them these days and that sort of knew in the court used to be some of the liberals as republican appointees, the tendency is to split on partisan lines are striking, not to mention bush first court in which each of the nine have been defined in the constitution reason to rule for the same presidential candidate for whom he or she is likely to have voted on election day. they too catholic to mathematical logic of that happening by random chance. the reason for these is interpreting the constitution is an inescapably subjective enterprise in which policy and political preferences unavoidably play a big part. these can overrule its own precedents. even a rigorously apolitical just as passionately committed to applying the law would often find a clear law to apply. roger polemic, but most wouldn't. conservative than some liberal originalists are correct in saying that just seems to invoke

the living constitution to override the original meaning has nothing to guide them but their own policy preferences. originalists can't avoid objective policymaking their for at least four reasons. one, the framers themselves often differed on how to play counts tuitions to specific cases and about its meaning. to come any consensus they want to access about meaning has been erased by time and social change. three com even when the original meaning is clear, sometimes so unpalatable on the server rejects the. for example, nothing in the constitution or its amendments was originally the racial discrimination by the federal government, but would be unthinkable for any justice to follow that original meaning to its illogical conclusion. and the hundreds of precedents contrary forces justices to choose in case after case so if

you are justice confronted with a powerful legal argument of the sides of every big case, how would you break the ties? by flipping coins or perhaps by persuading yourself is the interpretation of future the preference of the better ones. so all night premiere image of their own political and policy views, on issues as diverse as abortion, campaign finance, debt held in national security. this is not to suggest judicial review is illegitimate. the country needs an independent judiciary to check majoritarian tyranny. the only way to prevent judicial review is for the justices to have a healthy sense of their infallibility and to do for farm are off in the elected branches. among the current justice however, such just justice, such judicial modest fee is jettisoned after the confirmation hearing. and on this committee seem to be

unanimous. thanks. [applause] >> will now allow our panel 23 minute to extend and revise remarks come a disagree or with each other. i will mention a return to the audience as is our tradition, we will see if any of the first analysts have a question to pose to you can think about that. ron, since their current analyst can comment on the remarks, we think it turnabout is fair play. just quiet >> well, i wanted to second mike's observations about justice kagan by pointing out if you look at her background, it's almost as if they were scientifically designed to oppose each other through the ages. the resume is there almost near images of each other, not only do they both go to harvard law

school and take the same, my class and the professor, both of course went on to clerk at the supreme court. they both went to have a political positions in the white house. they both were nominated for a circuit judgeship and hunt their nominations effectively killed by the opposition party had a fear he might end up sending the supreme court. both got fantastic consolation prize is that the chief justice going on to make a fortune in private litigation and elena kagan the most influential job and legal academy. at the same time avoiding appellate opinions whence they eventually were nominated to the supreme court. both were leaders. justice kagan and chief justice roberts had it in terms of

personality, both were considered, always seen as extremely brave people who found generous mentors to cling to that quickly surpassed them manage to avoid the big bad feelings in the wake. so in terms of personality as well as their career path, they seem to be ideally suited to play the role that mike has laid out for them. >> would you agree -- one of their extremely sharp questioner who's been ignored here is alito. did you calculate his -- what is the ratio you're going to sell to the highest bidder? >> a provocative question, the ppr, i'll play later. but this is how a reporter works, a like me. i concocted a scheme and began going through each of the nine just said. it was exhausting. i thought this is ridiculous so i'll just pick up one and i was

just a soda may or. but i agree, justice alito is a questionnaire. he's very poignant, nine hypothetical. his nonhostile, non-starchy. he's not like he's trying to be the smartest guy in the room. >> is sometimes this. the mechanic, absolutely. >> bush is going to ask about sonia sotomayor. i really like what she's doing to bring herself out into the world. she's diabetic, childhood onset type one day peace. she's been pretty a good in the community working with kids are talking to kids, going to baseball games. i think it's a really salutary team when someone is sequestered at the core will go into the world. as a writer, as a journalist reporter, i am looking for a quote in that opinion i find it difficult to get a good quote

out of a sotomayor opinion and i find your writing bland. as a questionnaire, i like her a lot. here's one question that she asked in the prison overcrowding case asking of their representatives in the state of california. when you're going to avoid or get around people sitting in for days? with that sort of blunt concrete detailed language, it may not be striking to the heart of the matter is a little flame to the cloud they think. but it is her background. she likes the details and she is really persistent. she will not let go of and not forget once you get your teeth into them and show purse you that. and she's utterly fearless and asking questions of police aided the justices are, to. so last were frequently maybe a

justice kagan, maybe not quite as striking at the heart of the matter, but she is an unafraid artistic, which is a good thing. she seems to fit right in. >> a couple thoughts. one, am i to agree with everything that has been set up in the justices speaking out to justice rather than alito i think all of them have made great contributions to the life of the accordance and different kinds of contributions. they bring different qualities, but there are very sharp eared at night to return to the question of next or why it could be a turn-of-the-century as i think neil said quoting someone else. but we could see how they may not be because these are all out there and who knows if they'll give error. constitutionality of the health care love, constitutionality of

the act, the same-sex marriage case, which has potential to be the biggest affirmative action and racial preference case other. we could see all of them be decided next june. and i think it's conceivable i think less likely we could see all of them decided by five for next june. of course it happened to be a presidential election year would make it all the more dramatic, so fasteners the ballots. and you didn't mention the two already. in addition to the medicaid reimbursement, there's the gps monitoring case and the fcc indecency regulation. those are already minor. >> let me pose one question before i recognize that there's. stuart and i appreciate your

partial anti-originalist discussion, even if i disagree with much of it. but one is that even if that is true at the supreme court level, because the cases are very hard, there are no clear answers. one of the other ways of looking at the flora first amendment cases. i think that, but i can only remember the two that were mentioned on videocams come a funeral protesters, the pharmaceutical marketing case from vermont, the arizona campaign finance. but they were flipped among the conservatives on most of those. ..

and i think both of them write strong opinions as someone who is a professional stake in the first amendment. i read their opinions with great respect and i have some doubt whether the court has been right on the california videogame case for example. i think the arguments on both sides are very strong but

certainly as a descriptive matter, the court is -- has been strong in ways that please some people and displease others in different compartments especially campaign finance. >> michael would you also explain, the jokey begin with about thomas' dissent and the video game which was quite unique. >> right, the reference, the joking reference was to justice thomas' i thought eccentric defense in which he went to great lengths talking about the founding fathers childrearing practices. i would like to make a point related to the first amendment cases. agreed from what i've seen, this court has over the course of time and expansive view of the first amendment but notice how the cases are cast. in some cases, the funeral protest case and violent video games were seen as free speech cases. in the commercial speech case of

vermont the pharmaceutical advertising and certainly in the arizona election cases and citizens united, generally the narrative is cast as a victory by the business-friendly fat cat friendly roberts court, and instead of a victory for speech, expansion of speech, and that tends to be a fairly lazy narrative and sort of irksome. the chamber of commerce of the united states 157% of the cases that enter this year, which is just barely above breakeven. i believe that this court is sympathetic to business from their background and so on but it is irritating to me to see their decisions where the client that wins may be the business but the principle that is vindicated is something like speech. in the likes of list cheney talking about all qaeda lawyers. they are not the lawyers for al qaeda so much that they are attorneys representing the

vindication of the constitutional principle so my point is that what is pro-big business is sometimes actually more fundamentally seen as what is pro-first amendment. >> if i could just add a footnote to that. i agree with that but it is interesting that justice breyer i think drag out the lochner comparison in describing one of these commercial speech things. and there is i think an argument that is going to develop on the court. there are some cases in which businesses are winning first amendment cases and some of them strike is core first amendment issues. citizens united i think there is a core first amendment to the political speech component to the corporations for some that some of them seem like, they don't seem to have much to do with self-governance or self-expression. when it is somebody trying to put together a line of information about who is taking which prescription and

witchdoctors are prescribing which one so they can market their drugs more effectively, it is a first amendment case but it doesn't feel like a first amendment case to me or apparently to justice breyer. >> but you will note that the same justices who dissented or at least several of the justices including the female justices who defended the vermont case joined scalia's extremely broad commercial-free speech case in a violent video game case and violent videogames are necessarily about how we organize sites -- organizer sophie there. >> there are people who attack those cases as well. they are just the multibillion-dollar game industry and i don't think that is the way most people react to it. there is more of a real free speech issue there, whichever way you come out on it. >> but they didn't write separately in scalia's opinion. it is hard to square. one was decided on thursday, a anti-commercial speech, lower

standard, lower scrutiny standard and then the next one on monday. it is very hard. jeff i was going to call on you anyway. >> i don't think the majority of the videogame cases conceives of it as a commercial speech case, commercial speech case being involved in marketing products. this was taken as a pure free speech case case akin to shakespeare or fairytales are novels. so it was not speech about marketing videogames are commercials for videogames. it was about the core expressive value of the medium itself so i think it is not really a commercial. >> what else you want to add? >> talking about videogames because professor rotunda is here i just wanted to cite another question during that particular case. the law that was struck down refers to violent actions against human figures that take place in the videogame and she asked, well what if the figure is half -- and have all can.

[laughter] and so she does have some perceptive questions and those things as well particularly when confronting the california attorney general's lawyers in court. >> i maybe wrong but i think there was a -- another justice with "star trek." they'll try to take an opportunity to tell a joke and if you are at the lectern you must laugh. [laughter] now that i'm at the lectern, i see victor and ron. do either of you have the first question? ron, please wait for the microphone. so that they c-span viewers and our heritage internet viewers can actually hear the question. >> it is a comment on what stuart on originalism. i know it is, to say that the framers didn't think about equal

protection. of course they had slavery then. that was the original sin that was part of our constitution but around v. board of education the feed then attorney thurgood marshall argued in terms of originalism and went to eliminate slavery, it is really hard to justify the government making decisions and casting out burdens because of your color. so i don't, i don't think it is a fair claim to say that even originalists conceived this. i don't. >> i'm not sure i understand you but i guess the thought that occurs to me is the same day as brown versus board of education came bowling versus sharp and that was the decision that desegregated -- desegregated the schools in the district of columbia and the supreme court had a problem because there was no provision in the constitution that anybody can claim with a straight face had ever been designed to prevent racial discrimination by the federal government and it was the federal government that ran the

schools in the district of columbia so the court made of the substantive process doctrine which by the way judge bork ridicule back in the 70s and i think understandably. now i think it was a justifiable result, just because i think sometimes you have to look at original meaning and say sorry, we are not going to do what it says. but i don't see how you can defend rolling versus sharpe on the grounds of original meaning. and not be interested in how you would. >> i guess we agree to disagree but what the court says is part of due process is that you don't treat equals unequally, and casting burdens based on color is a previous condition of servitude is exactly that. that. it is true that washington d.c. had segregated schools, but the time of the 14th amendment their warrant public schools. that came later in washington didn't -- pc was run by the washington d.c. committee which

was a bunch of old people in white linen suits from the south. so i think the part of due process is that we not treat people who pass out benefits and burdens just because of the color of their skin. that was argument and it is what marshall argued on behalf of the naacp. victor? no. okay we will call on non-panelists here. the gentleman here. >> thank you for your time. i am a concerned citizen from centerville virginia. regarding the videogame case, how is it that the supreme court can actually balance the first amendment versus the compelling state interest to protect the

children along with the police powers as well as with a morality clause? i'm kind of interested to see how that can happen and how does the justices, without figuring out which one trumps the other? thank you. >> who wants to take it? >> i think when the court took the case, it wasn't so clear how they were going to come out because the lower courts for a decade have been unanimous in striking down similar restrictions on video game sales is violating the first amendment because there was no carve out for violent content like there had always been for obscenity. and, as i thought about this case, it seems to me there was a strong possibility that the court could if not uphold the statute as is, please come back with this sense of a more narrowly drawn statute might pass. there were two recent strains on the court. one was, you had the strange

effect in the regulation of minors. you had liberals on the court extending a more paternalistic view towards myers in the eighth amendment cases in striking down the death penalty for juveniles, limiting life without parole to homicide cases for juveniles and so forth. so you had a view that younger people are different fair. on the right end of the court you had more of a view that they just don't have that many rights, if any. they have none if you are justice thomas and they have rarely any or their rights can be curtailed its use on the morris v. frederick case involving the bong hits for jesus banner that the high school student held during the olympic torch relay. they're the court acknowledged that was a free speech activity, but the state interest and statements that undermine undermined the antidrug message

trumped the first amendment rights of minor so i thought if you combined those two strains together you could find a way on this court to uphold that statute or a version of it. but as it turned out the court went back to pretty much the very traditional first amendment analysis that says that the governments job is not to suppress information and when it comes to particularly outside of school. when you are -- they just a thing for very concerned about creating a new exception, a new exception which could easily be bootstrapped to all kinds of other violent or other forms of content that the state decided were damaging. we must remember i don't think there was evidence submitted that showed video games have ever incited any crime but there is evidence that record albums, the young people who kill killed themselves after listening to certain songs, claims against those artists were dismissed but

there is evidence that content can affect behavior and if so i think the court was unwilling to open the door and letting elected bodies draw those lines. >> i think jeff showed the danger of knowing too much because actually i thought all along there was going to be a simple decision by the court because i didn't delve as deeply into the new history and of cases except the general speech expansion view of the court. i thought it was going to be so simple that monday after monday i was waiting for the stupid decision that came out 25 days from the oral argument, the longest wait for any decision which was a surprise to me and i point out that the decision was 7-2 two to end there were two justices -- 5-4 for a belief in and whether there might need some more narrowly tailored to rule or law that would allow the state to protect children. so in this case i was applying to what was really going on that in the end the story that i rewrote stood up.

>> the librarians were doing justice writers study. stuart. >> jess said i think the way they decide this case is by category now there is a limited set of extension not covered by the first amendment. obscenity is one of them and then there are's obscenities like "playboy" magazine and you can protect children from "playboy" magazine. that it's been a love for quite a while. seems to me if you just focus on that, k. we are going to protect the children from "playboy" magazine the description of what happens in some of these videogames that we are not protecting them against, here are some of the descriptions. the videogame player creates an avatar that bears his own image, pretense to grasp and ask, raises above the head of victim, here here's the sound of the ex-hitting her head and cried name. sees her split skull splits colin feels the sensation of love on his face enhanced.

if it was my kid, i would rather he read "playboy." [laughter] >> we will start first. >> thank you. clark from the institute for justice. stuart i wanted to sort of challenge something you said about maybe the justices should be more deferential. if we look at the institutions to which you are proposing they differ, there seems to be strong institutional dynamics and motivations to cause as you rationalize constitutionality and what they already want to do, and i think there is some evidence they don't seem to take seriously their duty if they have one to evaluate the constitutionality of their legislation to begin with so if we have a case presenting a credible constitutional right, and with aces would we differ to an institution that has those hallmarks if you agree with how i describe them? >> do you got me there. i can't disagree with how you describe congress and its irresponsibility when it comes to constitutional issues and

that certainly creates a case for the court which obviously takes these things much more seriously. i think works through the much more thoughtfully. in a sense i would rather have the court deciding those issues than congress but i do question the legitimacy to the extent that it is just 5-4. it is the one vote majority and it breaks down along partisan lines as to whom appointed home. what happens, how much our recon for mice and the idea of democracy wins subjective decisions by a 5-4 majority and unelected people overturned 50 state laws and the united unites congress arguably. it would be nice if we had a better congress. >> jordan lawrence with the alliance defense fund. if my memory serves me right i believe four of the justices are over 70, justice scalia,

ginsburg, breyer and kennedy and with the election coming up do you think any of them are going to lead after the next presidential election and justice kennedy is he going to wait for a republican or are they all going to stay on for well past the president's term as elected in 2012? >> didn't justice recently say she had a piece of art that is being how to love and that was her way of saying she is not going anywhere? >> it seems to me that sitting justices would look at the example of justice o'connor who left the court to care for her ailing husband and my distinct impression is that justice o'connor really wishes she was still on the court. i think it's your there you are not going to want to leave them as the masseur justice souter. i think they will cling to this saddle as long as they possibly can. i don't see any indication -- i don't know what their health conditions are like.

some are frailer than others but i think they will hold onto their seats regardless of whether it is an election year or not. >> as justice scalia likes to point out it is a bargain because they are working for free. most of them qualify for a full salary as judicial retiree so it is really there contribution to the country's budget problem. >> just a point on the -- several weeks ago the united states senate took up the trial of the nomination of john mcconnell from rhode island. 33 left and decided to sustain a filibuster. only the fourth time in history that a cloture vote was required to break a filibuster on a district court judge. i would say those very few republicans are not in the filibuster caucus for the republicans who will filibuster the next supreme court nominee whoever it is because it is a a has a lot more politically advantageous to fight the confirmation that it is to facilitate.

>> one thought this triggers is, and the feeling and someone correct me if i'm wrong that if the judge is retired a year from now, there would be no replacement confirmed by the election. now that justice who people speculate most about justice ginsburg because of her age and some health history, there is bad and if she was going to retire to be replaced by president obama, i think she would know that she should have done it already. so therefore, think they will not expect her to be retiring and actually i think that is good news about her health. >> stephen richer with the washington legal foundation. michael spoke briefly about the suppose it's precourt bias and i think that is a favorite topic of most journalists following the supreme court term. i just wanted to as quickly because there was a senate hearing last week at which robert alt is testified to

address this exact subject and i wanted to know your thoughts as to why they have this hearing and what effect it will have? >> this was the senate judiciary hearing on the walmart case. well, the senate does what the senate does, which is to broadcast its perspective. at if the court makes it clinically unpopular decision, striking down vote on flag learning for instance, the court, the congress is typical response with the to show that they are unhappy with the decision and so i thought it was a legitimately political exercise for the court to demonstrate his displeasure with the ruling and to side with a the 1.5 million who -- women who are pressed by walmart or whatever the case was. to me it was not atypical for either party to have engaged in exercise. i don't know what it accomplished. >> as victor schwartz said they will be a present congress to return a number of these decisions. i doubt they will succeed

because that house would not overturn the same one to the senate -- that the senate would. >> sense robert is in the audience he might want to ask the next question, but part of his testimony to congress was that the supreme court was deciding many of the opinions that they didn't like according to statute and invited them to not rail against the court. i think some cases as i think it was the previous panel noted in the generic versus prescription drug warning case, that almost all the justices agreed it was -- i forget the adjective but a crazy result. and they were almost inviting the court to step in although victor schwartz explained -- victor, there you are. explained why it wasn't so crazy but anyway. we have maybe one or two more

questions. robert you are not going to take it? >> we spoke earlier about free speech and just you know the video game cases. currently, i think all 50 states have passed legislation against cyberbullying for children and states have proposed legislation for corporate bowling which would be essentially something similar for adults. do you see contradiction between what the court has held so far at least in this legislation? >> anyone want to. >> i don't think any case like that has gotten to the court yet so it depends on the facts of how they are applied in the states. i mean what is cyberbullying? it is -- is it simply giving an opinion about someone that is not flattering or does it become more like harassment. i think he it will be very very

fact specific. >> it is a situation where children of off school campus harass another child on facebook. in one case and a greater -- was a pedophile and he was suspended and it was upheld. another case of student mocked his principal but it was offensive so it was taken on a case-by-case basis. corporate bowling would essentially be the same thing where worry where you feel harassed a co-worker and a nonworking environment you could still be held accountable even though it may just be speech. >> i would recommend that professor eugene -- has written on how some of these laws are certainly troubling on the first amendment grounds. i know this in part because of the commission on civil rights which i serve has been taking up sort of related issues.

one of the sort of simple answers is just because the politicians call something harassment does not mean that it fits the legal definition, the legal definition of harassment and doesn't take it out of first amendment protection but i think you are correct in identifying the very interesting fascinating area of first amendment jurisprudence in the future. i think we are near our hour so please join me in thanking this panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> this involves the central question of whether the state can support single-sex education.

>> congressional leaders will --

>> the new head of the entry national monetary fund held her first official news conference in state in the job. christine lagarde promise to focus on diversity at the imf. she refused to comment on the forced resignation of her predecessor dominique strauss-kahn. ms. logar said the european debt crisis is one of her top priorities at the imf and that it will consider the next round of aid eight for greece on friday. this is 45 minutes. >> good morning everybody. welcome to the international monetary fund and to the first press conference of our new managing director, christine lagarde. we also have the first deputy managing director john lipsky, and i want to let you know that we have simultaneous -- so english is on channel 1.

french is on channel 2. spanish is on channel 3, and arabic is on channel 4. and you will have headphones. i also wanted to let you know that we have some of mike's and they would be helpful if you would move up to ask questions. we have three mics in the room. because there is so much wireless technology now, it works better if you go to the microphones which are the equivalent of land line phones. madam lagarde will begin with opening remarks and then we will take your questions. >> thank you very much. bonjour, good morning to all. it is very very nice to be back in washington. my personal will has gone from washington to paris, from paris to chicago, from chicago to paris and back to washington so it is lovely being that. i thank you all for turning up

and being there for this first press conference. what i will do, i ask for your indulgence. i will concentrate on a little bit of the states of the world as i see it at the moment and as i take this job with great pride, great humility as well and some trepidation giving the incitement of the job and i will give you in a nutshell where i see the key priorities in terms of the france mission. before i do that i would like to pay tribute to the fund at large, to the nice lady who is bringing me some coffee. [laughter] and to the man sitting to my right, and. john lipsky as you knows the first managing director. he will be completing his term on the 31st of august and he has been throughout his term a fantastic first deputy managing

director. i was able to see that from a distance from where i was as if shareholder, client and a member of the firm. i represented france on many instances and other seminars and i can tell you john has been a fantastic advocate, spokesperson, personal charisma and joy in the last two weeks. ..

wherever you always turn, wherever you are located, whatever your articles will be, there are issues, there are concerns, and and when we look at the status of the world, we have clearly come over the financial crisis that hit all economies in the fall of 2008 and which continue throughout at least one to 2,009 in some countries well into 2010 and saw my or do it is continuing given the growth potential has not been restored in many countries and that unemployment is still very high in many corners and therefore a lot needs to be done by the economy players.

now obviously recovery has taken its course as well, and when we look at our focus for 2011, 2012, we are clearly on the rebound and things are improving and getting better. if we compare with the situation as it was an 2,009 and the height from the crisis, but that recovery is as people will say he will comment on the uneven. if the focus is in the range of 4.5%, looking ahead it's clearly unbalanced in the sense they are in the range of 2.5, whereas merging markets are more in the range of 6.5, some of them such as india and china getting higher marks, so we are facing a turnaround which is very uneven with country's leading the charge and not those that were historic leading the charge and others advanced economies that are lagging behind in a way

given the status of development. in the midst of that, we have clearly the two categories different issues to address but if we are to provide service and guidance, advice and recommendations and if and when necessary and if asked support. those are on the one hand the issues of sovereign debt and concerns all advanced economies ranging from japan to the united states, but clearly with a focus as you write about it as we know with a focus on the year autozone and in particular a country such as greece. on the other hand, when we look at emerging markets we have in some corners the risk of overheating, and we obviously have the risk of inflation as well, and sometimes particularly in the low-income countries the risk of imported completion that results from a high prices of

commodities and including commodities obviously both oil prices in general but of course agricultural products as well which is critical for the incoming countries. so that gives the fund a landscape to really excel in terms of giving advice, recommendations and analysis, ringing the alarm holmdel again and obviously providing support when necessary. so we are facing a landscape that is in a better shape than two years ago but was an uneven process of recovery and specific issues of a divided nature given the division that we are seeing between the advanced economy on the one hand and that emerging markets on the other, and the least it looked countries or high income we won't call them good specific issues and yet a path to recovery that is of the pronounced. let me now turn and i assure you will have questions and i will

be happy to take your questions, humble saying you don't know what i don't know because as you deciphered on the job in member of the fund i was a shareholder of the fund on the receiving end if you will find myself a managing director clearly on the sending and the giving and because we are here to serve the membership of the fund that is 187 members, for those of you who were eventually in doubt. the fund should focus on all i will address them in two chapters, if you will. when the concerns the external election of the fund and the inside issues of the fund and i will take the latter and second

because i regard them as important but not as a key priority. certainly my wish is for us, the fund, that is the executive director board, the management and the south, which i have suggested in the town hall meeting is the key asset of this institution, we need to focus on the outside. we need to focus on what we can provide. we need to be available for the membership and look at our bellybutton and wonder how we can best do this or do that. we will. but there is a lot to be immediate priorities in my view. and of those three extra chapters, if i may say, all began with a c which reminds me the order i want to take them. the first has to do but cut back stiffness. we have seen during the crisis that all countries, all sectors,

industries, services highly connected with each other and among themselves. and we need to address that interconnectedness, the interconnections, however you want to call them, with a view to refining, enhancing and improving the services to our members. for those of you familiar with the fund we have the bilateral work and to take a very traditional symbol of the article for review, the substantive work done to the fund to really analyze the quality of the economy and make recommendations. but we do not necessarily take into account this interconnectedness that is so obvious to us and has been clearly it devised by the crisis. so first of all, let's focus on those connections and connecting points between economies within

economies and make sure our services and advice are actually properly including that particular. my second c is credibility. the first one was connections, connecting points. the second is credibility. for the fund to be credible, its analysis, its work needs to be candid, needs to be credible, needs to be even-handed. there is no one category that deserves a special treatment and another one that will receive harsh treatment. even the level playing fields are worth what you will hear me say over and over. the third one is the comprehensiveness, in other words it needs to be connected, credible and comprehensive, and by that i mean we can not only analyze the economy by looking

at some of these traditional standard criteria is, we cannot be jordan by the hope to reduce fiscal deficits and organized fiscal consolidation and a different way make it sustainable. those are the key criteria as and the path that has been clearly opened to include such matters as employment, social affairs, peripherals components of the traditional economic look at the situation of the country needs to be taken on board as well. i'm not suggesting it should be turned into a specialized boutique on the employment and the best way to reduce the employment. we need to rely on other institutions that exist and the work that has been undertaken

together needs to be pursued, the same together with the wto. so the comprehensiveness of the approach must be enhanced. because ultimately we should never lose sight of what we are about. the international monetary fund is here to serve and provide services to its 187 members with a view to what? help restore stability where there isn't stability and there's plenty of that around. to help make sure the economies of the world work better to provide a better welfare for people come and clearly on an plant is a key issue whether you look at the the evidence economies or emerging markets the issue of employment is a critical one and one that actually determines a stable

social chemistry for the society so we should not lose sight of the overall main goal of the fund. i told you there were about three chapters that were my three priorities, connectedness, credibility, comprehensiveness. the two chapters concerning the internal affairs of the fund that reflect on the external as well where the substance are very closely interlinked the same is true for the fund what we do externally reflects on how we are billed internally and vice versa. to that end, we must continue to improve the legitimacy of the fund and that touches on the government's, it touches on the appropriate representation and representative this of all members, which does not exclusively, fleet into quotas

or seats of the board not to say that we must not quite to the contrary we must complete the reform approved in 2010 and i will see to that and i left and made sure our increase was wrapped up in the parliamentary process approved by my parliament so we must complete the 2010 reform and governments on the quotas must be adjusted to reflect the architecture of the world but that's to those who reflect the unemployment policies in our training policies and the way in which we build teams and the way in which we organize recruitment so people are not clones of each other and that the second aspect which to me is very important in addition to legitimacy, diversity is actually properly taken on board. it's not just gender diversity for those the would worry about and feel excluded. it's about including, not

excluding. it's about reaching out, about engaging, breaking down the barriers, removing the obstacles so that all participants can actually be at the table and it touches on geographical origins, it touches on culture, touches on the background, so as i said, we can to give vantage of the differences that we all bring to the overall table of the international monetary fund. with that, i will unless you would like to ask anything we will then open the floor. >> thank you very much. as i said it would be great if you could prove to one of the microphones to identify yourself and your news organization and please, one question each.

>> good morning. i am from brazil. for what you've seen in this very short period what time to get acquainted with the imf what would you review the most? >> it's been a force. [laughter] and i've had eight hours of preaching and was 24 hours so little sleep in the meantime. you have the pressing immediate issues that perhaps dewitt sovereign debt. and as i said, it's broader than just of the year ozone. there's a tendency to focus on the year ozone because it is a

mixture of various components that make it more critical and sensitive to add more difficult to address because of this sovereignty, yet the lack of political sovereignty in one single capital. but it's a very broad based issue that needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency. the second one coming from brazil you will be particularly aware of that is the capitol flow, and the fact that as a result of sovereign debt issues and concerns and doubt and suspicion by investors there's a massive investment to areas of the world that are not wanting the and to spend or are not prepared for it or fearing the

effect on the economies, so i think it is a combination of these two that are of immediate concern and that are pressing issues. >> thank you to read over here the microphone. >> [inaudible] i would like to ask about your personal feelings. this would be your second or third time leaving the area and high school and now you came back here as the head of one of the most prominent international institutions. did you imagine those kind of things, and what is your sense right now and expectation as the head of the institution? >> thank you for the personal question.

you remind me of something which is to recruit, the passing of time. while i look back i was here in '73, '74. washington did not have an metro. washington was a very reasonably quiet capital with not a lot of activity, lovely country club's. clearly the world has changed massively in the meantime. was i expecting i would return to d.c.? no. i knew i would have something to do in the world on an international basis because my american field service experience brought me up with a wide horizon than my home town or even my country, and i'm delighted to be back to reviving the international monetary fund has exactly that set of both technical focus, rigor of

expertise and analysis and willingness to confront and the eight delete to delete and be specific and controlled with very international background because it's not so much the smile on my like the background that really speak for the fund and its international nature. but for all of the young girls in school of the moment, i would like to say they should each consider that everything is possible. >> thank you very much. >> congratulations on a new job. you are obviously from the right from what i believe is the socialist should we expect any changes in the spirit, the letter or the priorities of the policy to north africa in the

middle east. >> you know, i tend to be very practical not to be as dearth and were labeled by particular certifications and i think you have to judge people by what they do what they propose rather than what they say, and if you look at the map of the world and look at the international socialists' around the world you have a massive range of views and opinions from the old marxist leninist to the much more free-market oriented so to speak socialists. so i think it's certainly not with that sort of cut occurs asian and mind that i address the challenges ahead, and i

believe that no one should be earmarked with a particular label. they started in our excellent reforms, and i would certainly consult on them and be very supportive of continuing the them. i think i've given you an example for instance when i speak of the comprehensiveness we should adopt embracing the employment and social issues as well as the economic trends that are more traditional, the reforms that he has started and that have culminated in 2010 are good reforms and must not only be implemented and forced in all corners of the world, it's not just a matter of paying some principle but back at home the principles are implemented but also pursued. the world is going to continue to change. we have this plant that is moving at the moment and that needs to be reflected in the government's and employment and

i would continue that. >> thank you. over here? >> from china media. about the spillover report recently i just want to accept for the current what else you plan to bring into imf to monitor the important country and what else. >> you're right to mention the spillover report as one way to address my first c, the connectedness, connection and the fact one particular policy will have willful affects and consequences outside its territories, and the fact the idf has embarked in addressing and describing and analyzing them is i think it important. we need to take stock. we need to see how hopefully

this, what we can offer to the members as a result of the effect. second, in terms of how can we constantly improve to the fund. as you know, my colleague and friend, the minister of finance for singapore to the imf see suggested and i've supported the proposal that many reports, whether you talk about the standard article or whether you talk about the financial report or five spillover report, it's better in aggregated so that there is a comprehensive analysis that can be offered to members. i fifa would be a very important improvement. john is also suggesting he's

right. >> there's the civilian report is coming up very shortly which will also help us determine to improve and drop, not against dropping it, for your information and is one of the common stocks we share with not only the management but the head of the department to work cohesively doing for many years and it's been like that so let's continue i will say if it is not useful or providing value then let's drop the and focus our immense resources and massive capital power on what's going to be useful for the members. so that i began the job. >> thanks very much.

>> first imf world meeting what is your strategy to the issue for the euro and my french question in france to the coverage -- >> what is your feeling regarding the latest events in this case? >> on the first one, there is an imf board meeting which is scheduled for friday at which we shall consider the fourth review the payment of the fifth tranche so that may be -- that is scheduled as a set for friday and he will appreciate that i am not going to share however i appreciate the quality of the

television channel, the conclusion that will ultimately take place. on the second question, as i said, the most important thing for me is to make sure that the institution actually is proud of its achievement, it has reasons to be proud of its achievements under the previous managing director and under the first one to acknowledge the quality of the work and the reforms that have taken place, and as to the rest we shall leave it to the legal cause it should take and i'm not going to comment on that. >> thank you. over here. >> i want to wish you all the best in your new job. >> thank you. >> ayman correspondent. i would like to ask you what are your anticipations, what are your expectations from the

government and major opposition political parties increase, and the social reactions if it would like to answer the objections of many analysts would say the primary spending is out compared to the last year they seem to support this creation of deficit. thank you very much for your attention. >> without anticipating what will be discussed for the board scheduled on friday, i would like to say simply that i hope the greek political parties altogether are in government or opposition can be inspired by the courageous decisions made by political party in portugal.

there comes a time when individual interests, political rivalries should be set aside when it's in the national interest of the country, and that was clearly demonstrated both in the case of ireland and portugal. >> in relation to the analysis conducted by the imf, and you can rely on me that the imf in its judgment will remain its dependence. >> thank you very much. leedy in the white. >> i'm jessica from german tv, and i would like to ask how might a possible default in restructuring of kris's debt

harm european banks, and is this something -- how likely is it you would support such an approach? >> i'm afraid i'm going to disappoint you because you have a lot of questions on increase and i'm going to either diluted the responses of these areas very sanitized simply because the matter is under review the board meeting is scheduled on friday. i have a briefing this afternoon on greece, and many issues and matters are under development as we speak including paris in the private sector involvement that was fought by germany in particular of other members of the heroes own. so let me comment actually on the questions. it's clearly a matter that is high on our agenda and one that

we will continue to work on the troika basis was now, and clearly with mind the ultimate purpose we all pursuit which is to restore the competitiveness of the country. >> thank you. howard snyder from the "washington post". >> won broad question if i could, now that you sort of switch perspectives, do you think the ec has been overstating the risk of an orderly before restructuring of sovereign debt throughout the continent? the feel like this would set the dominoes rolling. they've also got a lot of their own assets to play in the rescue some wondering if you think because of devotee of overstated to risk and secondly, briefly i can't resist. do you think they are close of

each other? do you think the staff here are clones of each other? [laughter] >> well, dealing with your second question, of course not. i attended the town hall meeting yesterday which you should have seen the room. your room here is full but the room yesterday was just amazing and what is even more amazing is the diversity that was clearly obvious in the room. but iiss is the diversity as multifaceted. it's not just about gender, color, religion, sexual preferences also about culture and economic background and i think that we need to draw on their resources and the intellect developed in many corners of the world because the will make it better and richer. now, on your first one, have

very clear recollection of the first days of september, 2008, and the last day of september, 2008 when some people at the beginning of the month pulled its okay it will teach those guys a listen. at the end of september was not quite on the same page, it doesn't hurt to be navy overly concerned but to try to anticipate consequences of any of the measures being considered i think we have been burned once, better be shaunna this time. >> thanks. i'm going to take a couple of questions. spec thank you. >> u.s. is highest diversity several times. my question is in terms of the

management reform, could you elaborate on the time line for this framework of management to reform how should we expect real change? thank you. >> i will be clear on that. and it's a twofold response. number one, about management style, and it's no criticism of my predecessors but my style is about opening up, reaching out in teaching people as a team. i can't do it alone, they can't do it alone. we have to prove the institution to get there and engage the stuff to make sure people are not only satisfied with the work, but prowled with the results and happy with their

work. so in terms of -- i'm not suggesting they were not happy or were not right, but my way to try to organize that is by working as a team so there would be the delegation of work, there would be regular meetings of the team so we can be on the same page and i mean the management team, the deputy managing directors but also the heads of the department. now in terms of physical changes, as you note the addition of the management tractor was being considered, not a bad idea and i'm going to consult the next few days on this matter. >> thank you very much. >> from the financial times let me ask a couple of issues i'm sure you've not expected to come up. [laughter] as a lawyer how we counter accusations that you are one,

not qualified to take positions on economics and to, but of interest with french banks and taxpayers at heart on issues like greece rather than those of the imf. >> you always ask such nice questions, allan. it's always a pleasure. [laughter] you know what, i'm not going to write about my qualifications or lack of qualifications. i think the true meeting as you say and we will see how it goes, but it comes to the job with an open mind, liability to draw their resources and willingness to contribute from all not going to second-guess on going to ask questions, i'm going to evaluate and rely on the advice of people who know well their area, and you know, without being too

political about, not all conductors know how to play the piano, the harp, the violin or the cello. so i would like to be a good conductor. as to the biased i would have to favor one or the other, certainly don't expect me on that particular. i will not be biased. >> it's too bad all of you couldn't have joined us at town hall to that scene and the enthusiasm of the staff in welcoming our new managing director. she brings many firsts, as i said many people say she's the first woman managing director, but she used to my mind a woman of firsts with a great experience, leaving large international organizations, experience in both the private and public sector, the staff is

30 welcoming and very enthusiastic about the leadership christina's wing to provide the imf. >> thank you. >> the very long experiences as a lawyer, getting your experience as a lawyer in the u.s. are sometimes what lessons do you think ought to be drawn from the way the u.s. legal system handles the case -- >> the way the u.s. legal system handles its arrest in the subsequent proceedings and would listen to all the media learned from that and in a related question you talked several times about how it would power the certain reforms made what to consider that would differ? >> you will appreciate why not

to comment on the comparative study of the judicial versus the continental system as we call it. >> different systems and backgrounds and different ways of reaching what is critical in my view and i speak of a former lawyer that would eventually all legal systems and that. espinel quote lessons to be drawn on the media concern's the presumption of innocence, something that is highly valued the world over sometimes protected, sometimes respected and i think it would be the altar of the media to respect that as well and more broadly actually this huge appetite the media's have in general for the new announcement, the new bit

that you will be able to capture and made headlines with sometimes blurs the overall judgment that is often required to analyze for instance an economic or fiscal program. there are obvious examples that we can use. when a program is designed for instance, when the agreement is reached, the results cannot be acknowledged and computer the following day so the passage of time i was referring to early on which makes us look a bit older which lightens our hair is also something of use to better analyze the situation. >> how might you differ on a policy basis at the high yen after mr. shrontz con? >> one difference that comes to my mind from the start this the

management style because indifferent person and probably more inclusive and team reminded in terms of substantial issues allowing me to take stock and be properly briefed and appreciate the debt and the substance of some of the matters that are on our plate in the coming weeks and i will come back to you. >> i'm sorry, the -- >> i want to follow on the case -- if if you plan changes in them in light of the controversy over mr. strauss and is there too much pastoral in the building would use a? >> could you just described,

give your name -- thank you. >> i thought i was making it clear that the diversity and the value of diversity was the top of my list of priorities as far as the fund was concerned. together with diversity comes respect for everybody, and it's been the case in the past people have been respected and i will make sure we continue to be respected no matter what the differences are, and that goes to both of the substance of the analysis but also the individual says the stand. apart from that, i will very shortly be taking the training program on ethics, and i think it's a very good thing. i have instituted such a thing in my law firm prior to my

government life and i look forward to that. >> who's next? >> over here and this is the last. >> it's not the first time we see a french managing director and american deputy director. there's been talk about the will of emerging economies. what you consider changing the status quo right now, would you consider managing director from the emerging economy can i put that question to both of you? >> i think i addressed the question earlier indicating that the matter had been under consideration under my predecessor and i would consult on this and consult rapidly on this matter. otherwise i don't plan to change my nationality. >> thank you very much indeed.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] whe

where both sides leave their weapons at the door and sitrom o across the table from one another and a comprehensive solution to a comprehensive problem.robl the emsolution to that problem does not lie on creating villains and enemies. in thef last two weeks we've avard a lot of rhetoric coming h from the white house, demonizing people who have corporate jets or demonizing people who make over million dollars. i was reminded in this deeply about millionaires of the debaty in 1969 in america was one ofomt the first debates i ever bun watched. i returned home from the servico and had become my business and when the board cannot at 1,500,000 americans who made was over $1 million paid zero taxes i personally was astounded.ound. everybody else was astounded and the loophole by creating thee se alternative minimum tax to read something to make sure so wmeont who pays no tax at least pay

their fair share, and i put that y in quotes. today not 155 millionaires are paying the alternative minimum 0,x, 34,200,000 americans are3,0 because oftentimes when congress catch everybody in a biggere ned loop. i don't think we need too those who employ americans and creates the jobs o and make our economy run anymore than we should allow mice people who want to save social security or medicare.save sial s the president in the speeches last week targeted millionaires millthe job creators, she created the lindsey and enemiesc none of that will help us solveo the problem. pres ttw she's not the only one singing cut it can go to bothase sides. c as we look at the chart that's been on the floorhe the last twd weeks about what's happened in 0 the last 30 months since theed h president was elected with thin. critical things, unemployment bn 1.9 million people, 17% in terms of their great, gas prices almost double, federal debt of 30%, but remember it was i

was elected so it's not just thg president's fault but he is making it worse. it's up mcdonnell $11,058 in alt health insurance premiums by almost 20%. the only thing that's down in the last 30 months are the expectations of the americanis people. like. expectations what our when to lbe like so for a momes i wouldom like to offer historio suggestions what both t sides ce do tomorrow with the white house the door, save the table and in begin to negotiate. one is to look back in history when we've had big problems and sotions. came up with big solutions. the 1980's are a particular timg i was in the state legislaturein then and it was happening in yed washington. when i was 39 years old in 1983 ronald reagan and tip o'neill had a meeting at the whiteal house. i wasn't there but allegedly ith went something like this. the president said social security's going broke in about 20 years we just got a report. .e need to fix it. agree o'neill said i agree.to wor

i'm going to work on it but i'm wi not willing llto raise the tax d o'neill said i'm willing to to k work, but i don't want to cut the benefit.ooked at the the actuary and said what we dos you push the eligibility out and get the system back in the actuarial soundness. 1 i was 39 in 1983. i would have been collecting age social security at 65 in 2010gan yut because reagan and o'nealhe got to get ready pushed mye y eligibility out by one year to age 66, 65 and now incrementally goes up two years to 67 in a few years. that's the system and actuarial7 soundness for 67 years.dden i again is the economy in thesebay difficulties caused people, babo boomers to go to the big social security and collector early social security at age 62 so wee have had a rush to social unciny our economy. the reagan and o'neill thinkid social security by the t

eligibility out, they didn't h ise the tax but they did raise the ceiling upon which it wasnkt levied. interesti i think it'sng interesting publicly i know the president sd should understand and all shoulw recognize the next year was 1984 and president reagan won 49 to c 50 a year after he fixed socialf we ought not demonize. crerybody in this room knows yos can cut every discretionary dollar out and still owese on $300 billion in the deficit. we are only going to fix social security and medicare are theebt edly ways we are going to fix m the debt and the deficit and onl medicare i was disappointed when paul ryan in the house came up with a forthright plant he was f demonized in fact indicted at the white house and criticized . face-to-face at the conference.. it's about time we started trying. we start to define common grounr and look at our solutions in a t

comprehensive way. we it's not time we start callingrt names but instead start callingt numbers, start looking at what it is we can do within our bac control to put our spending baco in line, amortize over debt over time to a reasonable amount ande reduce our deficit over time. pn t's not going to be fixed with one stroke of a pen or one single legislation that is when to begin to be fixed when both rtdes said that the table andura understand this is the fourth fe ,uarter of the super bowl in tha future of the united states of h america and continue to shoot each other and so aerobics and bats and create enemies and nott making it worse for all of us. i spent the weekend with the american people that live in thf ytatus florida and spending tima with five of my ninewatchi my grandchildren. remember saturday night watching my grandchildren play watching down and then they weren't themy reoking at me i was watching them play and i felt that theirg

future, what their future was going to be like in the countryd that ran unlimited debt andxpeca deficits and inflated, lowered its expectations and was not the america arrived in fortunate to. live, work and be born in and ty recognizing my age and time i th know tavhat my future, the yeare have left or about thoseo be a p children and grandchildren. pro i want to be part of the solution for the problem today.n the part of their expectations in the future. say i want them to look back and say granddad make its better.statest tomorrow is an opportunity foras the president of the united he states to lead.can he has completes he can lead with either choose to take isolated any serious an issuetec that people were instead look back at the deficit commission . which i voted for by the way, ce one of the republicans to vote m he tission the came back with a comprehensive recommendation in december that should come to the floor for debate the dealt witha social security. code. it didn't deal with medicare, id

dealt with the tax code and expenditures and lower tax ratee and raised opportunity. the pr tesident didn't let it ce to the floor of the congress of the united states. we look he looked the other way.each otr it's's time we look into eachgod other's eye and say there's g solutions people of good will can finda a way to do like ronad reagan and tip o'neill but i don't want to be a part of just. it worse i want to be part of majust making it better. i hope those in the conference sit down with that attitude we don't create enemies and wor villans, we don't make it worsee we begin a platform and template in the next three to four weeks we can begin to amortize theamor debt over time, reduce deficit r over time, raised thehe amerin expectations of the american brh people and cause a great futured for our children and grandchildren and i yield the floor. >> i know what is said about senator isaacson of georgia he's a republican minded democrat and he's my friend and i like him.o we don't agree on everything,

our records are different butins what we have to see this mornin was the right thing and what he had to say this morning - shoula open the eyes of america aboutse where we need to go.and sd we yesterday the president sat dowe and said we need to be serious about the deficit reduction. sot we don't need a ninian deal. authoritatively to the world that tdehe united statesnge ands understands its deficit challenge and is prepared to make the hard choices to addrest that. i think the president is right. i was interviewed this morning by a quincy a little radio station and they said why don't we take a deal and justi get it? over with? a well, if you think if you will take a mendelian will probably be out for a mendelian that thef end of the day literally nothing willin happen. here's the problem we face and real problem for every for ery dollar we spend in washington ww borrow 40 cents.ents. we are a bit from countries all work on the world they are

china. china loans us money so we canon spend for government purposes. m how do we stand on the? lo you look at the federal landp we used or the half of thene federal and police in the unitet states omef america work for one department, the department of defense. fas if you look at expenditures thee fastest-growing sections of the budget have been on the military side as we wage the war mechem iraq and afghanistan and participate in exercises in libya that's an expensive up undertaking. we know that has gone up 84%last military spending in the laste ten years 84%. we know the same purpose of time itat spending on mandatoryur programs wouldy, be like social security, medicare, medicaid,vea payments, spending for those u payments over the last ten years has gone up 32%. and we know that the rest of the

budget, the so-called domestic diretionary discretionary spending whichde k would include things likerisons building highways, keepingrants federal prisons open, providings pell grants to college studentsr giving children from poor families early childhood education and for research, that's one section of the budgef that's 12% of the budget and in the last ten years that part of our budget has gone up 0%. no increase in spending in thatf section.g goe most of our spending goes into the military, 84% increase over ten years and mandatory programs for 32% over ten years. federal spending, the thing wef: can't seem to get a hold of, ann you know that as individualsinet whether your try a jul of insurance for your family or try

to cover the owners and workers were looking at it from a states and local viewpoint when itblic comes to employees.care i could analyze the health caret system, but i do know about itht ct it is a model that is not ce sustainable. care you cannot watch the cost of health care could up beyond inflation every single year andr expect to control deficits with their it is your family deficit, said the deficit or national tional d deficits.ef but that's the reality where we ar are today as we face the current situation, and i listen to the n senator from georgia who ihom respect very much talk about a what president obama ander to ai come and i would like to add a little perspective to it. time e the last time the federal the government balanced the budget o rim the surplus, was in the administration william jeffersor s,inton we generated a surplusai

in those years that as we tax collected more money in taxes o. and revenue than we paid out, and that hadn't happened for as decades. erson at that point as william a jefferson clinton left office af president, the national debt oft aerica, the accumulated national debt of america from george washington to williamas 5 jefferson clinton was $5 trillion. $5 trillion. and we had a surplus in ourd annual budget, and when president george w. bush took over command president clinton had invidtation to the white house, he said next year if youl follow my budget you will have th $120 billion surplus. that's what president george w. bush inherited of $120 billion. in the next year.

belfast forward eight years preg later. at the end of president georgers w. bush's eight years in office, let's take a snapshot of what did it look like than? the national debt was no longer $5,000,000,000,000.8 years later, it was almost $11 trillion. it more than doubled in an eight year period of time. and with president obama to office, instead of being handed a budget for the next year withn 120 billion-dollar surplus as president clinton, president obama would have said was giveny the budget andou sit next year u you follow our budget you will 2 have a $1.2 trillion deficit. ten times the amount the in president bush had in the surplus president obama was tolc you have that in deficit. you will owe that much.haened the books don't balance. what happened in eight years? several things haven't i knew i

the cost do anything with them and held d on to them they would be worth $25. so, grandma and grandpa would give me the bond i think it's $18.70 and i stuck it away. savn the reason i bring it up is the savings bonds were the way we.2. financed war. americans sacrificed and loaned. money to the government and thed savings on it was my family tradition, the tradition ofditi. america when it came to the twoe most recent war in iraq and a afghanistan that didn't happen.p

we borrowed the money from other countries and so during that eight year period time whenush, president bush reached the two wars and added it to theddedto national debt, and we didomethig something else. no president in the history of ever has the united states of america a effort has cut taxes in the midst of the war and you knoweor why because you have yournment;e for. new ow you have a new expenditure with hundreds of thousands of fd troops in the field and familied to say keep them safe and bringn them home and you are spending t billions of dollars there how can yoesu cut taxes?du they cut taxes. two wars unpaid for, cut taxes. and then the president -- bush -- signed into law programs, dramatically expensive programs that weren't paid for. medicare part-d was one of them. you had these signed into law. at the end of that period of time the national debt rose from

$5 trillion to almost $11 trillion. now, the republican party has a philosophy. the democratic party has a philosophy. there are those of us who think that sometimes we should listen that sometimes we should listen sometimes we should listen to one another and try to learn another and this is one of those occasions but i will say to my friends on the republican side of the aisle the senate and a republican leaders inhe the house, those who are arguing that the best way to get the american economy moving forward at this point is to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in america have forgotten their history. that is exactly what we did under president george w. bush e and look what happened. the biggest deficits in the history of the united states ana when barack obama raised hisis hand to offer the lincoln buyable taking bible taking the oath t of office the country lot 7000 jobs in america and unemployment was running r ramp. and craft going. using they were plugged in economic theory of tax us for

the wealthiest people in america. then. it didn't work then and it won'a work now., o it is a tired oldld idea.in it may get give them points in opinion polls. credibility around the world and it is a position they are taking. having said that i guess i canea stop here and say durbin i was a heck of a democratic speech. that may go a little bit further.. i was on the death is ai s commission. ten i listen to everything. it was split democrats and s republicans and the president appointed apl commission. there were democratic senators and republican senators in the with house members amber listen to the whole thing. i came to the conclusion thatere there was some position as the republicans had taken that weres wrong and there were positions that democrats have taken that, were also wrong.ime r it was time for us to try to do something smart.d i vot and to do is bipartisan. i voted for the deficit commission. 11 out of the 18 of us did and i

think i surprised more people i, than i ever imagined but i think it was the right thing to do. madam president of morning i voted for if my son who lives in your state in brooklyn sent me an e-mail and said thanks dead, you are doing the right thing.he every dead wants to hear that once in a while in their lives and i said at this commission meeting and it meant a lot to at me. that my son whom i greatly loved would have that kind of respect decision. here is what we did in here is t what we need to do now here's what we need to say to the american people. we can get out of this mess. g we are good people, smart andrt, hard-working and we have a great tradition in this country when it comes to dealing with with challenges whether they are waging wars or fightingress recessions putting a man on the moon. we can do it.an've don we have done it and we will do it again.hi start without preface. don't badmouth the country because we are blessed to be he. living here in this country ands its history is proven over and over again it can tackle theal

biggest challenges and meet thes head-on. whe i and you know who will win this battle when it comes to the biggest challenges? average americans. who were the soldier to soldiers who went off to war?s in they were my brothers in the korean war. were regular old families have said it is our patriotic gg duty we are going up to serve and they continue to do it time and again. so when it comes to sacrifice, s americans know that spirit asut well. not only the can-do spirit that the spirit of sure, my brothers each gave four years of their tu lives in in the united states may be in so many other familiet did it.wiin it says americans are willing to step up and participate in aefft national effort. a when they think we are allthe together as a nation moving inar the right direction they want tb be part of it. america i want to be part of it. america wants to be part of it. when we come down here and talk about solutions let's talk abou everybody rolling up their sleeves and getting involved. i know the c poorest of the poos can't. they don't have the resources

and they may not have theheir physical or mental ability.re whatever their circumstance i'm ready to stand and say we are going to help our most t vulnerable people and asking them to pitch in and sacrificeet may be too much in someet circumstances. but the rest of us, let's pitch in and here's what we have to do. first we shouldn't say that anyoneul in america who is wealy and comfortable in life is going to be spared from sacrifice. everybody has to give.an s those who are beteter off than some should give more. i don't think that isnk unfair.o life has been good to them. i america has been good to them and when we need them, they should be asked to help. the notion of raising taxes on the wealthiest people in america shouldn't be something weitho automatically reject. it should be part of the conversation. secondly, we have a tax a codem, that you couldn't carry with two arms it is so big. and loaded with laws and regulationn and frankly most people don't pe

know what's in there.o i will tell you the people wholt do know. this special-interest lobbyists in washington know what is inw there. the lawyers at the tax firm know what is in there and s tomehe pe in the committees here. if you go to the tax code you will spend almost $1.2 trillion in tax expenditures.most most people don't understand that.ou it and i learned a little bit about it on the deficit commission. here is what it comes down to. $1.2 trillion in the tax code equals all thell credits, all te deductions, all the exclusions everything you can take to r reduce your taedx burden. $1.2 trillion also representsdig theac entire amount ofte discretionary spending each year ind the united states. it is a big sum of money, so we spend it in our expenditure levels, defense department allte the way through the agriculturet department andween everywhere in between and we forgive or don'te collect the same amount in the tax code.

so who benefits from that? well let's look at the basics. 70% b of american taxpayers do x itemize on their tax returns. they file the standard term. they don't itemize of the taxe code doesn't mean anything to them. special deduction unless it is a refundable tax t creditax where category, doesn'a help them.t. 70% of americans don't touch it. what are the biggest deductions under the u.s. tax code today? a in all my wisdom and education and experience on capitol hill i raise my hand and said it is the mortgage interest deductiongest right? wrong. the biggest single deduction is the employer's exclusion for health care premiums so employers are able to exclude income. the amount of money they spendat for's health insurance for theie employees is the biggest.rest number two the mortgage interest deduction. i use it. my wife and i bought our home and thought about it ahead of a

time.intest we get a mortgage interest deduction and maybe we can buy a little bit more home. h but when you take a look at thed mortgage interest affection andi realize 70% of americans don't a itemize them look at the 30% who do it turns out the mortgage interest of action,he the lion'r share of the money for the ded mortgage interest affectiotin gt to the very highest income categories in america. so that comes as a surprise. you think it is a middle-class tax cut. it it is by larger tax cut for wealthy people.ta i want to preserve the part that protects middle income families but the highest income categories be willing to see some change in to that deduction if it meets america's deficit is finally going to be brought under control? so when you take a look at the tax honest about it.bout there are things in their we the can't afford to do any longer, things we maybe should have s never doneho and we can clean up that tax code.t whatta we found on the deficit commission by cleaning it up we

can actually produce enough revenue out of that effort to lower ordinal tax rates. i hope my republican friends thi will tune in and this pointtheya because this is something they applaud and i do too. if we can lower marginal tax rates for families even a businesses in america it is a good thing. means and i am for it but it means being honest in tackling the tax code. the other thing we have to look at our entitlements. this is wherent it gets dicey. people don't want to talk about it.paul i like congressman paul ryan. he is a smart guy.he hears from the usa maybe i am partial to him as a result. he is from janesville wisconsin and has studied this issue and knows it well. we have come to differente conclusions but he did tackle the entitlements. i think he went who are in medicare. doubling thend out-of-pocket expenses is a nonstarter. eliminating medicare as we know it and putting these folks in the loving arms of health

insurance companies in their 60s and 70s is not any kind of favor for the elderly in america. so i disagree with hisim, conclusions. i voted against them but i don't disagree with paul ryan saying we have to look honestly at medicare because if we don't't touch years it goes broke. we can't let that happen so we have to look at medicare in a sensible way to reduce the cost of medicare. let me give you one example. mer in a medicare prescription partg d program prescription drugs for seniors i think medicare ought to offer t an option. the government ought to have an option people p can choose other voluntarily one way or the otheu to try to buy pharmaceutical drugsti in bulk, reduce theirst costs so cost so that seniors payio less. a is that a radical concept? exactly what we do in the veterans administration. we can do it for seniors under medicare prescription part d reducing the cost ofpt that program and the cost to seniors

and creating as part of the spectrum of competition a medicare prescription program. one that the people can opt in if they t want to.oav so there are ways to save money ine medicare without endangering basic b benefits. the last thing i will say, this. tomorrow i will be honored to bt invited to the white house with senator reid to meet the president and the leadership in house and senate. andre i think the president understands that we do notbt cli extend the debt ceiling of the united states on august 2 it will have a dramatic negative impact on the american economy.o it is as if you would default on your mortgage. the same result. our creditors around the world s will say to oh america's not going to pay its bills on time? navy we won't loaned the money.l maybe r if we loaned the money r will raise the interest rate and

if they raise the interest rate on our government they will yoise interest rates across our economy. whether you are borrowing for a home or car or whatever happens to be so it would be the heightr of your -- he responsibility for us to default on america'so debts. that debt ceiling needs to be extended so interest rates don't go up as if they do it will hurt our economic recovery and put more americans out of work. the template for our meeting tomorrow should be the president's deficit commission.n i will only take exception to one thing senator isakson saidd earlier. he said the president did not let it come to the floor for ae, vote. in fairness to senator isaksonst that's was not the president's responsibility. that is their responsibility to bring it to theryg floor for ah vote. i've been trying for six months now with a handful of otherle colleagues and democrats and republicans to bring this to the floor so we would have a vote on it.poi' we haven't reached that point and i will keep on trying but we should and i think it still

remains the best way to approach theef deficit challenge, put everything underlying everything on the table. look to the deficit commission.l thier scrambles commission gave us guidance and if we do, if we get it done, and we can, we can do d this -- i think it is going to inspire people around t thebe world to believe again in america's future as an economy r when vice president al gore casg the deciding vote and look what happened to our economy. dramatic increase in job creation.ramatic dramatic increase in business ownership. dramatic increasein in business creation homeownership. that to i make it happen again f we come up with a bipartisan sensible inclusive budget magtu deficidet plan of that magnituda

there president called fortorro yesterday. madam president, i yield the floor. a >> thank you madam president. i madam president first i rise tot celebrate that weer are finally, finally after months and months of doing everything under the sun but facing our gravest challenge, spending and debt, we are finally focused on that on the floor of the united statess. senate. and that is progress. we have a long way to go but atn least that is progress. for months i've been urging usrg as a body, urging thewho c distinguished majority leader fr who controls the floor, please let's focus on our gravest challenge, federal spending and death right here on the floor of the senate.1th not wait until the 11th hour, not wait until a crisis theeb atmosphere around the debt limit. let's have a constructive debate and put meaningful legislation on the floor about spending andr debt m.

and for months and months and fortunately we did everything but that on the floor of the u.s. senate. the majority leader looked for every pill, it every topic that and it was all sorts of cats and dogs, many of them quite franklo trivial unnecessary legislation particularly compared to this t grave challenge of spending and. debt.t finally, last week a group of ut conservativeses said enough iseh enough.dn't we said, we shouldn't go out on our plan july 4 recess, july 4 break which was scheduled to be all of this week.oi and we said we are going tonanis block that. sure enough we t did. we said wait a minute, we are nt not locking not to be here just to be here. a we are not blocking that to be here and continue continue to i move on to every other issue under the sun but spending and

debt. we did that t to finally focus n the floor of the united states senate, on this gravest of all of our current challenges, federal spending and debt. so w and so hee said we are going to vote against the motion toeed proceed to the libya today. libya is an important matter and in factac that debate is long vs overdue in congress. those votes are long overdue bul that challenge does not rise tot the leveles of our greatest fundamental challenge right now as a nation, spending and debt. so we said we are going to block that motion to proceed to yet another unrelated matter and weu did. we rounded undp the votes for te last half weekend we got those necessary votes t to lock that o motion to proceed and as a result the distinguished majority leader pulled that vote, it is shaded that cloture vote yesterday. we

and so finally, finally we had an instrument on the senate sent floor, ae motion on the senate floor about this central f challenge we face spending and debt, so that is progress. i urge all of my colleagues to come down and joined this most important debate, and i continue to urge the majority leader to meaningful substantive legislation on the floor about this topic. we have motions on senate resolutions. it focuses us on the properebt. topic, spending and debt. that is progress but of course a sense of the senate resolution does not do anything, does not change anything so we still have further to go in terms of bringing meaningful legislation tola the floor on this, our gravest challenge, federal

spending and debt. now why do d i insist that thiss our top challenge at hand? well, the facts. >> for themselves. if every dollar the federal government spends, of every dollar over 40 cents is are owed money. over 40 cents of every dollar. imagine if you ran your household that way here.ou it wouldn't take long for you ro hit a financial dead-end and virtual bankruptcy if out ofviua every dollar. we are collecting about $2.2 trillion a year and thatris a lot of money. $2.2 trillion. the problem is we aree' spending $3.7 trillion, way, way way more than we are collecting.ajor

the distinguished majority witht mentioned in -- entitled spending and i agree with him, that is a big part of the issue which we must face and aeful careful, substantive way. because medicare is one of those big entitlement programs. it too too is on an unsustainable path.ath. the average american pays about $110,000 a into medicare over hs or her lifetime. on average, that average american receives and benefits over $300,000 under them medicaid.aina there againwh it is not tough to do the math. one and average american pays him $110,000 in receipts and benefits over $300,000. so soshi kerry, another huge entitlement program. this year, it is taking and less

than it is spending on currentnf retirees. that day of reckoning was goingl to be several years down the road. it has been accelerated.'s it is here and it is here now, right now. social security is taking in tax revenue less than it is giving in paying out in benefits tohis retirees. and so what does this mean as of end up-and-up so we have more new debts under this administration, more new debt president obama then the debt compiled under all of the previous presidents combined from george bush to the next george, the latest george, george w. bush.eb more new debts under this president then debt accumulated from all of those previous presidents combined.nd we must do something, and we

must do something about the real problem, spending and debt. washington in a bipartisan way,e has a spending problem. we' the fundamentalre problem isn'to that we are undertaxed. we all knohaw that. no matter what station of life we come from. the fundamental problem iss thae washington doesn't live within its means like we need to his families sitting around our kitchen tables. and so, washington has a fundamental spending and debtndl rob lum and we need real solutions and rigorous dci discipline solutions to get that under control. a how do we go about that?o m well, to me it really comes down to three important things. cut, cap and balance. cut, cap and balance. we need to cut the budget now.

we need to cut the budget this year and next year we need an immediate meaningful cuts and that is why i support those immediate, meaningful cuts in the federal budget. meang we can't put all meaningful cuts for one year for five years or t 10 years. we need them righthe now. a few weeks ago we had some budget proposals on s the floora we had several republican proposals and obama's proposed budget. the obama budget didn't cut any meaningful way. it doubledhe the debt in five years and tripled the dead and 10. on the republican side we had three different alternatives, all ofve which cut the budget ia meaningful way and i voted for all three.we we need immediate cuts. we needed medium-term caps anda

we need balance. cs. so caps, what do a mean by capse i mean we need established spending caps in each major category off the budget that takes some sort of extraordinary supermajority in the congress to supersede so we need a glidet t path to get through those paths to a balanced budget in a reasonable period of time. there are several proposals in this body. there are several proposals in the house. mostly from the republican the conservative side. virtually all of them, to establish those caps, to get ust on that discipline mandatory path so we reach thatpa balanced budget. and third and finally, balance. the goal needs to be a balanced generations off. it can't be at old decades off.

it needs to be a goal within our sight. and the only way ultimately i believe we can absolutely ensure that is through a balanced budget constitutional amendment and i'm very proud to be a co-author along with all of my republican colleagues, every single one of the us, co-author of a strong, meaningful, substantive balanced budget constitutional amendment. this has been debated in this body in the house for some time. the last time it was voted on on the floor of the u.s. senate it came within one vote of passingg we need to have this ultimate protection and straitjacket andj enforced discipline to say we'ri are going to stay thereng and nt going to get in the state again. virtually every state in the country has such a balancedder

budget, constitutional amendment under their state constitution and bad enforced discipline works. that straitjacket of the stateos level works. of works in my state of louisiana. we have such a provision in ourt state constitution that says you can't have a state budget that is out of balance and guess w whatha? m that mandates, thatda straitjact works in every year the legislature working with ther governor produced a balanced budget and if they go out of session and a month lateret revenues fall and the budgethe gets out of balance, guess what? they have to come back and within a set period of time and have to rebalance the budget. it is not fun. it is not easy. it has been particularly difficult in this horrible economy for the last several years, died because of that mandate, because of that constitutional provision, it

gets done and that is what we n need at theat federal level. we need a balanced budget, constitutional amendment. cut, cap and balance. it is an important formula, simple but substantive, to get us where we need to be. >> the senator has consumed 12e. minutes. you >> thank you madam president. u so i urge all of my colleagues, democrats and republicans, to come together and continue thism debate and move it to the next level. as i said when i began, the first thing i want to do is recognized and celebrate progress, because finally after months of resistance from theiso distinguished majority leader, we are finally here on thein acy senate floor and actually talking about our most pressing challenge, spending and debt.ate but, it is a procedural motion,

so let's get to the real substance by having meaningful .egislation cut, cap, balance legislation put on the florida floor of the senate, open toto amendments, on to wide-ranging debate. that the historyin and tradition of the senate.rtunel unfortunately it hasn't been thn practice of the senate all that much in recent years but we are trying to get back to that. let so let's put that meaningful substantive legislation about spending and debt on the floor of the senate, have that i deba, have amendments, have a free flow a of ideas. b cut, cap and balance. we can get there.ican we can do the work of the american people. we can bring in this runaway federal spending and debt and wt must, and we must now because if we fail to meet this challengeea this year, if we fail to meet this challenge this year i

believe there will be dire consequences for our economy and for all american families as a result. having this topic on the floor of thert senate is a start, butt is only a start. let's build on this, the substantive legislation on the floor as spending and debt and a act on that meaningful substantive legislation. thank you madam president and i yield the floor. >> the senator from new york. goes before i began am i time i would like to ask my colleague from louisiana if he would answer a question? >> i would be happy to.ef not only did it not move deficit

numbers down, but it increased the deficit. so how can he reconcile all this nice grandiose talk about a balanced budget amendment witht voting for a budget that increases the deficit? >> first of all i voted for that budget as well as the toomey budget.or that the toomey budget which was mymy first choice preference balancee the budget in 10 years. that would in my first choice. thye ryan budgets gets us way down the path compared to anything else proposed on the democratic side like the sid president's budget which on the senate floorch actually got zero votes out of 100 so while the ryan budget is not a first choice, it is a dramatic improvement on the path we are currently on. >> i would note to my colleague reclaiming my time that the ryan budget is not a dramatic step in that direction. the ryan budget as i understand it does not do a thing in the

first decade to reduce the deficit. of it cuts a lot of spending budget also cuts taxes and it raises the deficit.ndin >> if i may respond to the chair? that is not true.sn't it reduces the deficit. doesn't balance the budgetb-ye within a 10 year window which is my strong preference. the toomey budget does do that but it gets us going in the right direction and reduces the deficit and it is a particularly dramatic improvement over anything proposed by this administration and i:my colleague.nk m >> i:my colleague and i would it say this time to walk the walk, not talk the w talk.en whenever folks who refuse toev step up to the plate to actually balance the budget, the last president to do so being billd clinton may start talking about the way distance in the future balance amendment. not goi it is not going to ngsolve our p problemro in the next five year. we have to get to work right now and that is what we are trying

toyi do on the side with a fair and balanced approach. the balanced budget amendment that my colleague stakes -- speaks about would if you look at 18% gdp cuts deeper withind e the ryan budget and medicare asw we know it, would mean that things that we take for ranted like food safety inspectorsd and -- would have to be cut and then it makes it impossiblehe to close tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. it is not a balanced budget amendment. it is an unbalancedit budget amendment because it simply reflects an ideological viewca thatl vi my good colleague and friend from louisiana has but does not reflect the views of either a majority of his chamber or certainly the american a people. so let's walk the walk. let's not just talk the talk. i think that is very important to note. cutting spending, which is done

in the ryan budget, is not going to work in terms of balancing cn the budget. you just can't unless you decimate things like medicare to without revenues and that is what i'm here to talk about i today.upport o i rise today in support of thehe sense of the senate on sharedabg sacrifice. the clock is ticking. time is running short.me i to reach a deal in reducing the deficit and raising the debt ceiling. we are walking the walk.simp not simply talking the talk about some ephemeral balanced budget amendment that isd unbalanced. yesterday the president said that we needed to reach a deal within two weeks in order toin avoid roiling the financial markets. democrats are working in goodut faith identifying spending cuts and tax loopholes taxo close and what are our republican colleagues doing?,, they since stalking out of the negotiations two weeks ago they

are sticking to their blind alley theology in playing political games by combining the president to come to the capital when they know we can't, to deliver a message esrd hurt.cont republican leaders have continuedin to it in says that e can't raise a single dollar in revenue no matter how wasteful the tax break or how generous the subsidy. mr. president here is what it ih coming down to. madam president here is what it is coming down to. the in the home stretch of negotiations our republican colleagues seem to be willing to tank the resident and a single taxdemo subsidy. democrats are committed to and reducing the deficit and gettinn our nation back on a sensible ko fiscal track but we know that everyone must pay their fairo share. tng we know there has to be compromise you can just draw a line in the sand and say my note -- my way or no way.gedd

it armageddon so over the past several weeks we have offered ae number of wasteful tax breaks that should be ended as part of the debtt ceiling deal. ending subsidies for the oil and gas industry making record profits. the ethanol industry with 36ol members on the floor including the majority leader. to their credit and corporate jet owners wiatll save tens of s tens of billions of paradoxically a republican now colleagues are now arguing that tax breaks for oil companies and corporate jet owners are too small to consider ending. argued that becauseaxpayers they will only save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. they say that is not enough andn so we shouldn't be discussing m. them now. mr. president i disagree. tens of billions of dollars that we can save on wasteful subsidies are certainly worth pursuing.tion to but, let's turn our attention to the matter at hand.

one of the biggest of all taxpayer giveaways, the democrats are trying to end.res tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. i rise today in strong support of the senate resolution that o says simply, instead of ending medicare as we know it, instead of cutting college scholarshipsr and cancer research, said of balancing the budget solely on the backs of the middle classlis lives and tax breaks forep millionaires and billionaires. e let me repeat that because that is the essence of our dispute here of our disagreement. you can't varnish it any otherts way. i know the other side tries tong say they're raising taxes trying to imply that we w want to do -- we are not going to touch a person's income below 250,000. some of us will even go higher,n 500,000 or 1 million but t everyone us on this side says if you are a millionaire you should share some of the sacrifice. s

the other side resist and then they try to hide i saying it ise raising taxes. is not raising taxes on average folks.le is simply going back to the level under bill clinton for we had wrecked her prosperity, record jobs and record income growth for the highest and people as well as the quest people w who got income growth s well. let me repeat why we have thisra resolution on the floor.st here's what it says.kn instead of ending medicareow ase know it, instead of cutting college scholarships and cancero research, instead of balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class list and tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. this would save over $100 billion a year and hundredl and hundreds of billions in the long-run. does not just a small amount. i ask my republican colleagues a is that's significant enough tot merit discussion and not just take it off thee table? the gop budget would and medicare as we know it to give

hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the wealthiestt americans. d theon resolution said simply,and don't let that happen. who let me say this.t of i respect people that made a lot of money. there are many of them in myard. state. they work hard. god loves them but many of themr are the first to say they should share in the sacrifice. there are some who say no but im don't think they represent mainstream america or mainstream american opinion. in normal times this would be a consensus opinion. the fact that we should and and and medicare as we know it.inax to give hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks to the richest americans. in normal times that would be a consensusnd decision. republican presidents and political leaders have long supported raising revenue combined withg cutting spending to reduce deficits. world reagan for instance. because he was -- he wanted tosc

shrink governmental that he was fiscally responsible but the republican party has been dragged so far to the right lane ideological friends that they now see this balanced approach is an extreme position. what it comes down to is this. r would republicans rather and for medicare than and tax breaks for billionaires? it is a simple choice.o and this resolution will make the answer to that question clear. d again, will republicans do anything even risk defaults to protect tax breaks on the highest income people, millionaires and billionaires and would they rather and medicare and solely relied on c cuts that hurt the middle classe than admit that some tax subsidy such as those for big oil companies and corporate jet owners are wasted taxpayer dollars? well madam president, we will soon find out. i yield the floor. >> i want to take note that thit

isim the first time since the watergate scandal that the senate has canceled its july 4s recess. t and the reason is so that we can continue working on w this issue of reducing our deficit and our depth and from my point of viewk and i know i speak for many, doing it in a way that doesn't t doesn't -- our economic growth and doing it in a way that is fair. it up with people like warren buffett or donald trump, paid e more in tax rates than their secretaries or a nurse or are firefighter. that is why we are here. that is why i am here. m i want to apologize to my constituents in california.th i have to cancel several events that were scheduled but we willy do that certainly at another time. it is critical to that and theof

current standoff and that seems to me means sticking to three principlesin.rincle first, we must agree that great nations do not default on their debt.nd am both sides need to compromise happen.doesn't nobody gets everything they want in ae. compromise. i speak as a senator, a former house member, a former county supervisor, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter. the fact is you don't get everything you want if you are truly negotiating andr compromising.es you don't take your marbles and go home. lite you don't take your little teddy bear and leap. you stick with it and you understand that and true compromise everyone gives just t little bit. now let's look at the government as it t is today, as the people wanted it.

they decided they wanted aresi democratic president and we have one in president obama.tatis they decided they wanted a republican house of representatives and they have d that. and they decided they wanted a democraticmo indymac senate, and they have that. so you have the three arms and two-thirds of them are controlled by democrats and one by republicans. if i then said, because of thisw i want to thirds of what democrats want, i could have a . leg to stand on but i'm not even saying that. i amyi saying let's need each other halfway. that is very fair and i think mind would think so.th this is not a parliamentary itea system.ee in a parliamentary system that

we see around the world, the ruling party gets everything they want and the other gets the talk. and maybethem they can somehow k themselves into the equation. so first and foremost we need te compromise.o second, we need to take a lesson from history and follow what worked the last time we balanced the budget in the mid-90s, the early toe mid 90s. believe me, we did it. and president when president clinton, we did it.my fri we passed a budget that some ofd my friends on the republican side said would be a disaster.ev it would never balance. it did. as a matter of fact it's b produced surpluses.udrepuic we pass the budget without one republican vote that laid out the plan. some of my republican friends said we are go into a depression.ed we went into the longest period of sustained growth and 23 toono

24 million jobs created. so we know i did do this because guess what? we get it. before. we had a plan. asked the wealthiest among us to pay its fair share.re and it created all those jobs and we had surpluses.er but our friends on the other side don't talk to us about that. we don't want to talk about it. we have to talk. about it becaua otherwise you are going to do with the republicans did to them seniors in their house budget which is to end medicare as we know it and to put the burden oa all thisnd on their backs and on the backs of the middle class. so, first we need to compromise. second, we need to do what works, cut the things that youe, don't need and invest the things that will create the jobs and ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. third, we have to put our

country ahead of politics. coupl and let me show you a couple of very interesting recent editorial comments. actually theyy were yesterday or the day before. yesterday actually. this is "usa today." republican rigidity on taxess threatens to torpedo debt deal. republican rigidity on taxes threatens to torpedo debt deal.s is breathtakingly irresponsible considering the risks of default. the nation has he is trillions o of dollars of borrowed money tod finance two wars. p medicare's prescription drug program and president bush's broad tax cuts all initiated with the gop controlling both the white house and c the congress. now republicans have belatedly decided darling is bad too but

they dramatically resist even the most sensible tax hikes. this says it all mr. president. the "usa today."then then there is a david brooks leading republican columnist who said, if the debt ceiling -- democrats were willing to compromise but republicans were not. if responsible republicans toonl not take control independence will include that republicanudea fanaticism caused thist default. they will conclude that republicans are not fit to govern and they will be right. this is written by a leading republican -- actually i would call him a leading intellect in the republican party. so, we see here that people on on the outside are noticing what is p happening.ake

you cannot take your marbles and go home.a when i the full faith and credit of the united united states is t stake. a lot of people think raising c the debt ceiling is so you can do more spending in the future.t no, no. raising the debt ceiling is to take care of the it the deaths that were incurred in the past., two wars and paid for, huge taxe cut to the millionaires and billionaires, unpaid for. aip prescription drug benefit, m unpaid for from my republican friends said know m that medicae could not negotiate for lower prescription drug prices. so the cost of it is going just through the roof. so if we don't, if we don't put revenues on the table, i if we about closing those tax loopholes, those benefits for millionaires and billionaires, all the cuts go on to middle class and all you have to do is look at the ryan budged that passed the house to understand what is goingoi to happen if we don't do this.

bu the republicans had this budget and they gave itdg a name. over there in the house. the path to prosperity, restoring america'sca promise. i took some liberties and i wrote my own title. i i think they're " budget is theb path to poverty, breaking america's promise because that is what that budget does. the republican budget would end medicare as we know it. a 65-year-old who becomes eligible for medicare wouldmo py more than $12,000 in health heae costs the first year the planff goes to and -- goes intoec effe. imagine a senior citizen, a grandma or great grandma whom lives off of social security suddenly is paying $6000 for her health care and suddenly she's0. paying 12,000.that that might as well just tell her she might as well forget it. she just has to get down on her knees and pray that she does not get sick. the republican budget, since

that was enough to pay for tax cuts for their rich friends they cut medicaid by 49%.y they cut pell grants and by thef way a lot of that as nursing homes. paying for nursing homes for thi poorest of the poor. the republican budget would cut education grant awards by half. 1.4 million students would lose access tso financial aid. that is what this country has been about, giving hope to oures young people and hope means and education. pell grants, cut in half. they say over and over againn dn washington doesn't have a tax problem. we have a spendingwe problem. t let's take a look at that.se if you look at non-defense, discretionary over the years, what you in inflation, it hasn't grown at all. spending while the military spending has gone up 74%.,

so clearly, we have a roadmap so we can get to where we have to get.ut let's not keep cutting the things we have already cut. let's cut the ways. let's cut the fraud. let's cut the abuse and let'sn cut the expenditures. i will ask u for an additional five minutes and then i willobjo yield to my friend. >> without objection, so ordered. >> thank you area much. so defense spending, they may look at it and they are not happy about it even though it ls has gone up 74% over the last 1e years. again, we should look at warren buffett.oint warren buffett made the point that he paid only 17.7% tax. he paid only a 17.7% tax on his its $46 million in earnings while his receptionist paid 30% on her wages.

imagine. in 2008 the 400 richest income i tax filers paid an effective rate of about 18%. they paid an effective rate of 18% on 7 billion whereas the average family making a combined 100,000 had a higher effectivela rate. let's give tax breaks to the middle class, not to the wealthiest few have everything and more, whose children's children's children's children will be fine. s america. this isn't free revolutionary france for the king had everything. if there is a family supported by two teachers and they make $106,000 they have a higher taxl rate than exxon mobil but yet it you look around the country at andblican legislators governors they are going after the teachers. they are so wealthy.

while the peoplee w who are makg the millionson and billions, thy are just getting more and more. i don't understand it. it is trickle down. somehow somebody will spend something at the top and it will trickle down. b that is all fine but they haveon enough to trickle down already. we don't have to add to it. a family supported by a truck driver and a dental hygienist made a a combined 107,000 had a higher tax rate than exxon mobil. jets the tax base for corporate jets is $3 billion over 10 years.gest subsidies to the biggest oil companies costing us 20 billion over 10 years so what i'm saying is we don't have to balance the budget on the backs of the senior citizens who need their medicare, and the students who need their pell grants. we don't need to dogr that.man i am the chairman of the environment of public works committee. the house budget which i think

breaks america's promise is so bad on t transportation, it cuts 36% across-the-board. brd and thousands and thousands of construction workers whether u theyh are in utah or california or maryland or you name your town or your city, will be cut.e this ian an area where there hau been so much unemployment because of the housing crisis that you could fill 20 super bowl stadiums with unemployed construction workers. 2 million. that is how many there are. so look at what president clinton did. we increase. taxes on the wealthiest and created taxd in incentives for small-business andti investigated and retiremet savings.

surpluses of $236 billion. so let me b just conclude by saying this. this is a top time in our preci history. we are at the precipice for the first time in my lifetime oflt hearing threats of defaulting oc the full faith and credit of america. when we lift the debt ceiling we do it in order to pay for the debt that were incurred and sadly for us, after having a surplus under bill clinton, the policies of george w. bush caused us to go into deep holes in the deficit and the debt. we were on the way to a great place, but i will never forget it when george w. came out and he said i think that the surpluses we are running along to the american people and what he really meant, the rich people because that is who got the

lion's share of that.re so we can keep the tax o rates w for theat middle class.ure we can make sure the wealthy pay their fair share. we can come to the table and an negotiate with an open heart and an open mind and knowing well that we won't get everything each of us wants. readi i will close by reading a quote from ronald reagan. president reagan who in 1983 wrote the following. the full consequences of the default ip united states and even he said the serious prospect of the default are to impossible to predict and awesome toan contemplate.he denigration of the full faith c and credit of the united states would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of thee dollar and exchange markets. can the nation can ill afford to allow such a result. that is the end of the quote. president reagan was right. it is time to stop playing

politics with the greatestat ge country that gave us everything we have ever hoped for and i say to americans, called the senate. ask for a fair budget plan with the parties meeting each other halfway. thank you very much mr. president and iat yield thei floor.ec >> the senator from utah. >> is niceog m to hear the budgt plan but we haven't had a budget from this administration for ho? many days is that? almost 800 days. they have control of the senate. and we haven't seen it budget from this administration.udge may i be permitted to speak asr. long as i have to hear? to >> without objection the senator is recognized.zed. >> i appreciate that. t i getha a little tired of hearig the obama approach toward shared sacrifice. shared sacrifice is something. it sounds good but i prefer the republican approach to sharedch

prosperity and that is what i think we are all about. if you talk about shared this.ice, think about the bottom 51% of all wage earners of all households do not pay income taxes. top 1% of the so-called wealthy pay 41% of all income tax.e t it is up 10% -- the top 10% arep paying 70% in the top 50% pay somewhere near 90% of all income taxes. 51% don't pay anything. t but democrats say well they pays payroll taxes. t everybody does that because that is social security. while obamacare, family of four earning over $80,000 a year get

subsidies.idie think about that. that is what we call the poor?is they wonder why the money doesn't go far enough? t when are we going to wake up and realize that the other side just spends and spends and spends and they want to tax and tax and tax so they can spend some more. my gosh when are we going to wake up in this country and realize they are spending us into oblivion?i hear i hear how they are so caring for the poor and so forth. they also need to share some of the responsibility. don't we don't want the really poor pv people who are in poverty to have to pay income taxes. 51% of all households and that is going up by the way because of my f friend in the white houe and its allies. i wish i did not like them soe much. i would like to really be able e

to let go here but i like him personally.ant and i want him to be successful. he is not going to be successful by taxing the day let's i everybody.aged in mr. president this congress is engaged.. whether or not and under what te conditions we raise the debts a ceiling is a question that is concerned the markets of theshe nation. i hear about this issue everyday every day and the sustainability of a government that is grown far beyond any reasonable or constitutional limits and the cost of paying for all of this government is foremost on theolg minds of tax paying citizens who will be left holding the bag even when present a bomb is back in hyde park and members of congress no longer serve.ess thecurred debt incurred for thee programs last forever.

that is socialso security and 23 million ofet them getre refundable tax credits thatfu at more than they pay in payroll taxes.uldep i wish i could report to myut constituents and washington isng serious about addressing the spending problem.e unfortunately the last week we seem to have had hit a new low. president obama scott tradition was ssa press conference/temper tantrum where he offered policy proposals that i'd appeal to his left-wing base but will do nothing tomi avoid our national bankruptcy. democratic leadershiphe is now a binding resolution. designed solely to score some cheap political points that will just up the activist left too class warfare against individuals with high incomes.. he is going